The individual Rights guaranteed by our Constitution can be compromised or ignored by our government. For example, in United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 539 (D. Pa. 1947), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,

"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted npon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus." [Emphasis added]

Notice the verdict's confrontational language: "fighting", "combat", and most surprising, "belligerent". Did you ever expect to ever read a Federal Court condemn citizens for being "passive" or "ignorant"? Did you ever expect to see a verdict that encouraged citizens to be "belligerent" IN COURT...?

Better go back and re-read that extraordinary verdict. And read it again. And commit it to memory, for it succinctly describes the essence of the American legal system.

Clearly, we must do SOMETHING, for as Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

But apathy ("doing nothing") isn't simply a function of cowardice or indifference; "apathy" is a synonym for "ignorance".

What is it -- apathy or ignorance? "I don't know and I don't care."

Ignorance makes the public more "manageable" in the courts and in confrontations with the government. Insofar as government naturally seeks to expand its powers at the expense of the citizen's Rights, government has a vested interest in the public's ignorance and consequent apathy. The interest in expanding its powers encourages the government to provide little, no, or even false, education on what our Rights should be.

If you are a product [victim] of the public school system then consider this, The Department of Education gets what it pays for. ...and you need to 'get yourself smart' -- the sooner the better! This is not a good time for 'dumb-ass'.

Belligerent Claimant

Silencing Lawyers ... (or, the only way to handle a snake is by first putting a stick in its mouth.)

The testimony most dangerous to your case is the un-sworn statements made by lawyers who lack competence to state facts about which they have no personal knowledge.

No one should be allowed to testify to matters beyond that person's personal knowledge. Such persons are said to lack "competence" to testify, and an objection should be made immediately whenever such testimony is attempted.

Moreover, unless the person testifying is sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then no testimony whatever should be permitted ... and you must object immediately!

Lawyers are no exception.

Yet it happens all the time, and good people lose their lawsuits because lawyers on the other side were allowed to tell the court what happened, what it looked like, who said what, and too many other destructive things to list here.

Opposition attorney, "Well your honor, this is a bla, bla, bla, ..."

Silence the lawyers by objecting immediately! "Excuse me, do you have any first-hand knowledge to offer this court?" "Are you willing to restate that under oath?" "Sounds like testimony to me."

Lawyers should never be permitted to testify. Instead they should be required to present their evidence by presentation of authenticated documents and upon the testimony of witnesses who have first hand knowledge and are sworn to tell the truth!

"Excuse me, where is your competent fact witness?"

Instead of asking questions of witnesses (who are competent to testify) to get the facts into evidence properly, most lawyers just open their un-sworn mouths (some might say lieing mouths) and being to tell the story that favors their client ... even though everything they say is hearsay, since they were not present when the events occurred. They lack competence to testify ... and you must object immediately!

"Excuse me, is this court going to allow Mr. Attorney to offer unsworn testimony?"

It happens all the time!

Be on guard for it. Be prepared to object!

When a lawyer begins to state facts outside his own personal knowledge ... facts he learned from his clients or third persons ... facts he lacks competence to testify about in court ... object at once! It isn't right or proper and it is highly prejudical to the matter and against you!

Yet, you'll find this sort of unfair manipulation of facts in nearly every case you come across. If a lawyer cannot find tangible items or witnesses to offer as evidence in support of his case, he will frequently attempt to get the evidence in anyway by stating facts about which he has no first-hand knowledge ... detailing the content of documents that aren't available, telling the court what was said by someone who isn't present for cross-examination, or describing a scene or the actions and behavior of people he never met.

To multiply this unlawful exploitation of due process, most lawyers are adept at using the English language forcefully, illustrating their points with word-power most lay persons lack. It doesn't matter that they are members of The Bar. It doesn't matter that they finished law school, passed the bar, and enjoy a certain degree of prestige as they strut about the courtroom in expensive clothing and highly-polished shoes. If they do not have first-hand knowledge of facts they offer to the court, they lack competence, and a timely objection is essential.

Otherwise (if you allow them to do so) they will present damaging evidence in a light that dishonestly influences the court against you. They will present facts about which they have only the knowledge they've learned from others (i.e., no first-hand knowledge of their own), and you will unnecessarily run the risk of losing as a direct result if you don't object and put a stop to it immediately!

"Excuse me, who does he think he is, what is going on here?" "Why is he being allowed to testify?"

You must silence the lawyers ... or run the risk of allowing the court to consider the lawyer's testimony as admissible evidence. It isn't admissible! No. Not by a long shot! The rules forbid it.

Lawyers lack competence to testify! It is a corrupt practice. You must stop it before it begins.

Statements of counsel in their briefs or arguments are not sufficient for the purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. TRINSEY v PAGLIARO, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647

A particular aspect of this abusive practice needs mentioning to help you control the inevitable. The rules of professional conduct that govern lawyers (every state has them) limit the ability of a lawyer to be both witness and counsel for his client. One may serve as lawyer for a client or a witness for the client ... not both. If a lawyer insists on offering testimony and the court allows it over your objection, you should move the court for an order finding that the lawyer is a witness for the opposition. Either the lawyer is a lawyer and plays the strictly limited part of a lawyer, or the lawyer is a witness and can no longer play the part of lawyer! If the court rules that a lawyer is a witness, then move the court to disqualify him to testify pursuant to the state bar's rules of professional conduct (which, of course, you will have already read and be prepared to cite by scripture and verse). If a lawyer insists on offering testimony and the court allows it over your objection and will not disqualify the lawyer, move the court to order the lawyer to take the oath and submit to your cross-examination. Anyone offered as a witness must submit to be cross-examined by the other side under oath! It is no different if the person testifying is the other side's lawyer!

Object! And if the judge overrules your objection or refuses to rule on it, be sure to renew your objection before the court takes any action that would cement the damage. Make your record.

Take no prisoners!

Otherwise, unwanted evidence will come in without a competent witness and you will be further injured in your cause by inability to cross-examine the "lawyer-witness". If the judge allows it, object. If the judge will not order the lawyer to submit to cross-examination, object. And, every time the lawyer offers facts as a "witness", object! And, when appropriate, renew your objection before the court enters any rulings that rely on the incompetent testimony.

When a lawyer begins to state facts outside his own personal knowledge, "Well, apparently Mr. Doe believes that bla, bla, bla, ..."

"Excuse me, do you think or feel you represent me in any way -- you don't. You're fired!"

Remember: Your right to rely on the rules was bought with the lives of men and women who died to protect and preserve your ability to require every officer and agent of our government to obey the rules of the law like everyone else. Lawyers and judges are no exception!

"Equality under the law is paramount and mandatory by Law."

"Refusal for Cause without Dishonor - U.C.C. §3-501."

sui juris
of one’s own right, competent to make informed decisions;
legal competence, the capacity to manage one’s own affairs.
sui generis
one confined to his, or her, own facts, and therefore may not be of broader application;
being the only example of its kind; constituting a class of its own; unique.

Court Speak

Notes on PERSON

 Gerry Spence HOW TO ARGUE AND  WIN EVERY TIME

The Temples Of Baal

  Belligerent Claimant (different)

COURT SHALL NOT DENY FOR WANT OF FORM

Lawful Arrest, Search, Seizure, FAQ

PUBLIC SERVANT QUESTIONNAIRE

 I have authority...